Monday
Feb062017
by 
Josh
Josh ClimateGate 2.0?
Feb 6, 2017 Climate: Curry David Rose GWPF Josh Just about everywhere.
Story at Judy Curry's, Mail on Sunday, GWPF, WUWT,and Twitter of course.
Update on Feb 6, 2017 by
Josh
Josh
Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data by Judy Curry.
Instability of GHCN adjustment algorithm by Paul Matthews.
Science: One Damned Adjustment After Another? by Geoff Chambers
Reader Comments (270)
Source
On the timing issue:
From the AP article linked earlier.
Well, yes, as far as the Bates issue goes (perhaps - there's more to come I believe). But then there's this point, raised by Curry:
"The House Science Committee has an enduring interest in this topic and oversight responsibility. NOAA should respond to the Committee’s request for documentation including emails [blocked by Obama]. AGU and other organizations don’t like the idea of scientist emails being open to public scrutiny. Well, these are government employees and we are not talking about curiosity driven research here – at issue here is a dataset with major policy implications.
In other words, with the surface temperature data set we are in the realm of regulatory science, which has a very different playbook from academic, ‘normal’ science. While regulatory science is most often referred to in context of food and pharmaceutical sciences, it is also relevant to environmental regulations as well. The procedures developed by John Bates are absolutely essential for certifying these datasets, as well as their uncertainties, for a regulatory environment."
I'm not expecting any apologies - I didn't come down with the last shower. But a true, trustworthy temperature record would be a welcome change.
Eminent former Harvard Professor (aka Russell and "frothy") falls foul of blogging moderator for inappropriate language (ably abetted by hanger-on Phil Clarke). Oh how are the "mighty" fallen.
Did you mock your disabled students vv?
Phil Clarke. Sorry but we have learned to watch your particular peas.
On the timing issue:
"As far as the study being rushed, the journal says its records show otherwise. Science's new editor-in-chief Jeremy Berg said it usually takes 109 days between a paper's submission and its publication. The Karl study was received by the journal on Dec. 23, 2014 and published 185 days later, on June 26, 2015".
The claim is that the study and its archival requirements were rushed, not its publication after a rushed submission.
Based on no more than office gossip, ST.
Phil Clarke, I am waiting for Karl's excuse for stuffing Climate Science, and destroying the Paris Climate fiasco.
I think the House Committee will feel they're investigating somewhat more than office gossip - stop being childish.
Sorry, hearsay.
Josh: 'How the NOAA manipulated data to get rid of the 'Pause' in global temperatures.'
Bates: 'no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious'
A fairly clear case of defamation?
Let - there - be - light -
in science and in life,
re pea and thimble,
gyre and gimble,
for some toves be nimble.
A fairly clear case of defamation?
Feb 8, 2017 at 3:19 PM | Phil Clarke
Most of your posts are. Is hypocrisy compulsory in Climate Science indoctrination?
If ClimateGates 3 & 4 see further implosions, I might develop a taste for popcorn.
Hide the pea, hide the pause.
Hide the shame?
For the record, the former head of research for the National Coal Board, Richard S Courtney, is my father. He ceased holding that role when the NCB (then British Coal) ceased to be.
He doesn't pretend to be less than he is. He doesn't claim academic qualifications that he doesn't have. He doesn't need to because he has a record of achievement.
However, the fact that Greens resort to attacking him personally rather than attacking his arguments does please him. It is a concession that they know he is right.
He is now quite unwell and has stepped back from the climate debate. But his record still scares those who can't win debates due to their lack of evidence, lack of logic and lack of technical expertise.
He is still smeared by those who fear they are wrong and who seek to deceive.
I forgive Phil Clarke for his intemperate language. Whilst pointing out that when the winds were blowing strongly in our faces, we did not stoop so low. There is no place in Science for language or attitudes like that Phil.
Phil Clarke, when can we expect an apology for Climate Science's total failure to self correct it's own mistakes?
When can we expect incompetent Climate Scientists and their fellow incompetents, masquerading as Peer Reviewers, to refund their professional fees?
When can we expect the unpaid, to be compensated by Climate Scientists for their time and effort?
When can we expect you to stop defending fraudsters, and to apologise for your twisted and bitter bile, directed at anyone who points out the flaws in Climate Science?
As you can't even admit to being wrong about Gergis, why should anyone accept anything you write as being an honest assessment of honesty in Climate Science?
You and the rest of the experts in fabricating climate science, should have been honest about the Hockey Stick, 97% Consensus, Gergis, Karl, and all the other falsifications in between. I think you have left it too late now. I did suggest it to you before, but you decided you knew best. Why is that anyone else's problem now?
Hide the pea, hide the pause.
Hide the shame?
Feb 8, 2017 at 4:03 PM | Supertroll
They made such a good job of hiding the science, that now, they can't find that either.
Hiding the pause
is okay because
it's in a good cause.
H/t Plato's 'noble' lie.
There is no place in Science for language or attitudes like that Phil.
Feb 8, 2017 at 11:07 PM | EternalOptimist
EternalOptimist, Climate Science is not Science. I think that is the point that Phil Clarke is demonstrating very well.
Beth Cooper, it probably helped towards a more comfortable retirement too.
Climate science may not be science, but climate science could be science. What should we do to fix it ?
Where's clipe?
Watching Watts latest exercise in shutting up climate skeptics --
markx February 8, 2017 at 6:01 pm
It is a pity to restrict Nick Stokes. He is generally very civil and sensible.
I hope it does not go as far as the despicable Skeptical Science approach of complete silencing of dissenters and those who ask questions.
Anthony Watts February 8, 2017 at 6:04 pm
No, its just moderation. Comments still go through.
Nick Stokes February 7, 2017 at 1:17 pm
On moderation.
[yes, that’s right Nick, and you’ll stay there- your ugly comments on the original Rose/MoS thread accusing David Rose of being a liar with nothing more than your own angst has earned you moderation again. By all means be sure to alert “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien to your terrible, terrible, treatment here. We tolerate your endless diatribes, but we don’t have to give you unfettered access, which is more than RC, SkS, and other friends of your do on their websites for skeptics.
BTW, still waiting that apology over those accusations you made on “death threats” to Aussie climate scientists which turned out to be nothing but hype.
And, I’m still of the belief that you are a paid commenter. So please, feel free to be as upset as you wish.
-Anthony Watts]
And I forgive EO making stuff up and ascribing it to me.
Say, golf charlie,
Cli-sci intrinsic
or cli-sci extrinsic?
The question is,
'Who is ter be master?
That is all.'
beththeserf,
While you seem to believe anything and everything that a select few people lay in front of you, I tend to be somewhat more sceptical (if not outrightly cynical), and that smacks to me of quite blatant, unashamed data-manipulation, in desperate attempts to get the facts to fit the narrative.
When will these simple facts ever be acknowledged by those of your ilk, Mr Clarke?
Temperatures are NOT rising as expected;
Sea-levels are NOT rising any faster than they have over the centuries;
Ice is NOT in danger of disappearing forever.
There have been many, many similar changes in the past (and many have been even more dramatic!), all without any influence from humans, so why is this any different?
Phil Clarke & vvussell
when you have driven yourself into the lowest grounds of morality, don't keep digging a deeper hole.
Do you want to have a rethink about being constructive, and identifying the 3% of Climate Science worth saving?
Radical,
Hell would freeze over before you will ever see climate scientologists admitting their mistakes.
Mailman
Gavin's take on 'ClimateGate n.0'
Gavin's take on 'ClimateGate n.0'
Feb 9, 2017 at 11:45 AM | Phil Clarke
Why should anyone trust Gavin anymore? He is part of the problem, not the solution.
When is Gavin going to get honest about his part in the rise and fail of the warmist empire?
Mailman. The worrying trend of declining temperatures in Hell has paused over the past twenty years but now is being explained away by those pesky angel deniers.
Supertroll, Phil Clarke would rather we read Gavin Schmidt's opinion on Climate Science's justification of data fiddling, adjustments, deletions etc.
Hypocrisy and double standards are the key to making Climate Science work for the Politicians spending other people's money on it. As Gavin has played such a significant part in it, I wonder if he will be one of the first Climate Science refugees? The corrupt regime and culture, that he was part of, is facing a divestment crisis as advocated by The Guardian.
Mailman: not sure that is correct – I suspect that it would declared that that would be yet more proof of AGW; let’s face it, anything and everything is taken as “proof” of AGW. And then they wonder why they are not taken seriously…
Feb 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM | Radical Rodent
Let's be honest, if only a few percent of people voted BREXIT, because of the ridiculous amounts of money wasted on Climate Science, and consequent UNreliable and UNeconomic energy policies, then it can be shown that BREXIT is because of Climate Science. By extending this line of logic, Trump won, because of Climate Science.
Anything bad that now occurs as a result of BREXIT and/or TRUMP, can be blamed on Climate Science. Anyone who disputes this, can be invited to submit a proper scientific paper, at their own expense, for Peer Review, by a panel of experts who support Trump and BREXIT. If the paper does not pass this open and honest Peer Review process, it can be rejected as not valid science.
This is the technique used and approved by Climate Scientists for 20+ years, to silence debate, so they can't raise criticisms about the methodology, without appearing hypocritical, again.
I wonder if the Gavin who so denigrated the work undertaken on voluntary weather ships earlier in this thread (last appearance: Feb 7, 2017 at 7:51 PM) is the Gavin, as in Gavin Schmidt? If so, it makes one wonder how someone who appears to have been so uninterested in doing his job properly managed to get to the exalted position he now holds.
Just sayin’…
Golf Charlie: but… but…but… I thought the Brexit and Trump wins were because of all the racist, sexist, homophobes out there!?
Mind, you, I look at myself in the mirror (with the light on, as I do not exactly glow in the dark; there again, I would rather look in the mirror with the light off, but… hey…) and wonder where I fit in that picture. Surely, you have to be white to be racist, male to be sexist and… whatever… to be a homophobe; to be anything other is to clear you of all those charges, yet I voted for leaving, and had a hankering for a Trump win (mainly, it has to be admitted, as I cannot stand that Clinton woman – I see her as the embodiment of evil).
Radical Rodent, but the Global Warmists believe they are the only ones allowed to launch character assassinations, and that this means they are immune frome charges of hypocrisy.
It remains to be seen whether Trump considers any of them are immune from charges of defrauding taxpayers, but as other EU Nations consider EUEXIT strategies, some will point to other Green Blob misinformation.
Will history books blame Climate Science for the collapse of the EU? Obviously Phil Clarke's mentor, William M Connolley will be trying to adjust and homogenise Wikipedia entries to reflect his opinion and bias.
I didn't follow Russell's comment herein with much attention, but, my word, he really has behaved in this thread with all the dignity he can muster. (Derek and Clive fans will understand the allusion).
This is how sea temperatures used to be taken:
Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It's Not "Global Warming" by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
Sources of 20th Century Ocean Temperature:
"I learned to deploy Nansen water bottles and reversing thermometers for deep-sea sampling in 1949. I spent the rest of the subsequent decade seagoing, for the most. I can't remember how many bottle casts I made, or how many bathythermographs I deployed. There had to be thousands in the waters off coastal California. Other students and post-docs were doing the same farther offshore in the eastern Pacific, from the E.W. Scripps. In the westernmost Atlantic, a similar cadre worked from the Atlantis.
In the 1960s, more ships were out at sea: from Fisheries Laboratories, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now NOAA), and research institutions at Scripps (La Jolla, Calif.), Woods Hole (Massachusetts), Miami, and Texas A&M (in the Gulf of Mexico). The British sailed the new Discovery, the Germans the new Meteor, and there were small ships sailing from Denmark, Japan, and France. Many cruises were dedicated to the geophysics of the sea floor, where deep-ocean casts for water and temperatures were few and far between.
Surface water samples were taken routinely, however, with buckets from the deck and the ship's engine-water intake valve. Most of the thermometers were calibrated into 1/4-degrees Fahrenheit. They came from the U.S. Navy. Galvanized iron buckets were preferred, mainly because they lasted longer than the wood and canvas. But, they had the disadvantage of cooling quickly in the winds, so that the temperature readings needed to be taken quickly. I would guess that any bucket-temperature measurement that was closer to the actual temperature by better than 0.5° was an accident, or a good guess. But then, no one ever knew whether or not it was good or bad."
Dr Stevenson is no longer with us, but I expect he would have enjoyed the current spat.
"In 1987 Stevenson was appointed the Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO) and served an eight-year term. In this position, he brought oceanographers from around the world together to share knowledge in support of oceanographic research. He organized and conducted two major International Scientific Oceanographic Assemblies as part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, in Vienna in 1991, and in Honolulu in 1995. In addition to working as Secretary General for IAPSO, Stevenson continued to work as a consultant to NASA instructing astronauts on earth observation from space."
dennisa
Presumably the thermometers had a resolution of better than 1/4 F? Did you record to the limit of resolution? I doubt that windage cooled the samples significantly in the short time that it took to immerse a thermometer and wait for it to stabilize. Were the thermometers calibrated from time to time, or replaced? It sounds to me as if these temperature readings were little worse than land-based air temperature readings at official observation stations.
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/829725458484834305
I didn't follow Russell's comment herein with much attention, but, my word, he really has behaved in this thread with all the dignity he can muster. (Derek and Clive fans will understand the allusion).
Feb 9, 2017 at 5:28 PM | Capell
Capell, vvussell is a role model for thousands of failed climate scientists, some of whom remain at the over-salaried peak of their profession, selling their "science", honesty and souls to the politicians with the best access to taxpayer funding.
Feb 9, 2017 at 5:58 PM | Phil Clarke
If you were to correct and update Mann's Hockey Stick, you might appear more credible.
<I wonder if the Gavin who so denigrated the work undertaken on voluntary weather ships earlier in this thread (last appearance: Feb 7, 2017 at 7:51 PM) is the Gavin, as in Gavin Schmidt? If so, it makes one wonder how someone who appears to have been so uninterested in doing his job properly managed to get to the exalted position he now holds.
Just sayin’…
Feb 9, 2017 at 3:44 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent>
Either you're drunk or you have the reading and reasoning abilities of a rodent.
Just sayin'...
Feb 9, 2017 at 6:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterGavin
"Either you're drunk or you have the reading and reasoning abilities of a rodent.
Just sayin'..."
Brilliant, just brilliant!
Just sayin’… (But I don’t like to crow, of course… hehehehehe)
I still forgive P Clarke his errors, but I cant help noticing the uptick in the ad homs and disgusting language. I think the alarmists and greenies have a place and a role, but this is getting too much. They are a bit like horse dung. Spread around thinly, it does a lot of good. But pile them together into a heap...and they just stink.
Radical Rodent, at least when President Trump considers the future of the US contribution towards Climate Science, he will be sober. This is a relief, for those who feared the alternative option.
You have a point, EternalOptimist, and perhaps I should not have stumbled so. My only excuse is that “Gavin” (whoever he/she may be) rankled me with the blatant accusations against those whom I have seen exercising due diligence in the execution of their (entirely voluntary, and usually pursued with great enthusiasm) duty. Also, Gavin chose not to answer my quite simple question: if the data given was so bad as to be initially ignored, why has it become so pivotal, now?
GC: one alternative could be that climate science contributes to the US, which would be nice.
GC: one alternative could be that climate science contributes to the US, which would be nice.
Feb 9, 2017 at 10:56 PM | Radical Rodent
I think they have wasted all the money, and have nothing to contribute. Unless Climate Scientists want to take credit for the drop in hurricanes, the thriving Polar Bears etc, and all the other things they predicted with great confidence, that didn't happen.
<You have a point, EternalOptimist, and perhaps I should not have stumbled so. My only excuse is that “Gavin” (whoever he/she may be) rankled me with the blatant accusations against those whom I have seen exercising due diligence in the execution of their (entirely voluntary, and usually pursued with great enthusiasm) duty. Also, Gavin chose not to answer my quite simple question: if the data given was so bad as to be initially ignored, why has it become so pivotal, now?
GC: one alternative could be that climate science contributes to the US, which would be nice.
Feb 9, 2017 at 10:56 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent>
Either you're still pissed or sobriety hasn't improved your reading/comprehension skills. 40 years ago I was a professional mariner holding a Second Mate (Foreign Going) Certifcate of Competency; if I were indeed Gavin Schmidt I would have been the youngest person ever to gain that ticket and presumably would have needed to stand on a box to see over the bridge wing. I didn't "watch" people collecting met obs or "help"; I, like hundreds of others, I did my best to take them whilst carrying out my prime function of keeping the vessel and crew safe. You don't say what your function was whilst you were 'watching' and 'helping' but I'm guessing you were supernumerary. Finally, for the terminally hard of understanding, my whole point was that if the Met Office didn't consider these obs useful 40 years ago they are probably not useful in correcting ARGO measurements today.
It's good to hear that the MET Office are concerned about errors when taking sea temperatures. From what I can see, using the 'sloppy' canvas bucket method can introduce errors as large as 1 F.
Fortunately, air temperature readings taken at places such as Heathrow are so much more reliable . . .
Capell, Heathrow Airport should receive official recognition as a record breaking UHI, due to the record number of record claims made about it.
The contribution of jet fuel and tarmac has created more global warming for recording processes, even if there has been no change to the earth's temperature.